Judgment Petitioner seeks Wit of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the orders of the 3rd Respondent in CO:IRD 527 dated 21. 2004 and to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all attendant benefits. 2. Facts in nutshell are as follows:- (i) In the year 2002, Petitioner who was Scale II Officer Grade was working in the 1st Respondent Bank as Accountant in Karaikal Branch. On 18. 2002, Petitioner sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,00,000/-in the name of one Mohammed Mustafa against NRE DRIC Receipt No.474088 dated 06.07.2002 for Rs.3,50,000/- in the name of Mohammed Ibrahim having SB NRE Account No.111214 who is the elder brother of Mohammed Mustafa. Petitioner disbursed the loan in two instalments (i) Rs.50,000/-by way of Demand Draft dated 18. 2002 in favour of Ms. Flora Nesamoni [wife of Petitioner], Pudukottai; (ii) Rs.1,50,000/-by way of Demand Draft dated 28. 2002 in favour of A.John Bosco [brother of Petitioner], Madurai respectively. (ii) On 09. 2002, Mohammed Ibrahim who is the depositor of the amount requested the Branch Manager over phone to consolidate two fixed deposits into one. When the Branch Manager verified the deposit receipts with the help of other Officer, he found from the LAD Ledger that as against one deposit receipt, Mohammed Mustafa availed loan for Rs.2 lakhs. Thereafter, when the Branch Manager enquired the said Mohammed Mustafa and his brother Mohammed Ibrahim, they have stated that they have not availed any loan against the deposits. But Petitioner has used the blank set of signed documents obtained from Mohammed Mustafa in an earlier occasion while availing the loan for sanction of loan of Rs.2 lakhs. (iii) On noticing the irregularities a show cause notice dated 19. 2002 was issued to the Petitioner, for which Petitioner gave his explanation on 010. 2002 denying the charges. On 211. 2002, a charge sheet for two charges (i) failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and (ii) failure to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence, was issued to the Petitioner. (iv) Being not satisfied with the explanation of the Petitioner dated 112. 2002, enquiry was conducted. Petitioner participated in the enquiry. Enquiry Officer gave his enquiry report on 3. 2003 holding that the Charges are proved. Copy of enquiry report was served upon the Petitioner and he was called upon to offer his comments. (iv) Being not satisfied with the explanation of the Petitioner dated 112. 2002, enquiry was conducted. Petitioner participated in the enquiry. Enquiry Officer gave his enquiry report on 3. 2003 holding that the Charges are proved. Copy of enquiry report was served upon the Petitioner and he was called upon to offer his comments. The Petitioner has not submitted his comments. Respondent Bank in exercise of powers conferred on the Bank by Regulation 7 of the Union Bank of India Officers (Discipline & Appeal), 1976, passed an order on 15. 2003 dismissing the Petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner preferred an appeal before 2nd Respondent/Appellate Authority on 7. 2003, which came to be dismissed on 18. 2003 confirming the punishment of dismissal from service. The review application filed by the Petitioner also came to be rejected by the 3rd Respondent on 21. 2004 which is challenged in this Writ Petition. 3. Respondents have filed counter stating that loan application was entertained and processed by the Petitioner without the knowledge of the account holder and Petitioner was very much involved in sanction of the loan and he had done it without the knowledge of the Branch Manager despite being present. According to the Respondents, misconduct of the Petitioner reflected on his honesty and integrity and the punishment imposed on him cannot be said to be harsh and disproportionate to the charges. 4. Ms. Usha Raman, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Branch Manager was not in the habit of signing all the loan applications and therefore, absence of signature of Branch Manager is of no significance. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there was no finding/falsification of accounts and the loan was sanctioned with the knowledge of the depositor. It was further submitted that Petitioner served in the Respondent Bank for nearly 30 years and he has blemishless record. 5. Contending that being an officer, Petitioner is expected to act with utmost integrity, devotion and diligence, Mr. V.Karthic, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that loan was sanctioned in the name of Mohammed Mustafa, but the Demand Drafts were drawn in favour of Petitioners wife and brother. Learned counsel for the Respondents would contend that loan sanctioned was without the knowledge of depositor and thus Petitioner committed a fraud. V.Karthic, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that loan was sanctioned in the name of Mohammed Mustafa, but the Demand Drafts were drawn in favour of Petitioners wife and brother. Learned counsel for the Respondents would contend that loan sanctioned was without the knowledge of depositor and thus Petitioner committed a fraud. Learned counsel for the Respondents would further contend that the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are based on adequate evidence and conclusion cannot be said to be perverse. 6. Stand of the Petitioner is that account-holder has accorded consent to the said loan and that he has only taken the loan due to unforeseen circumstances which he had to face due to his sons imprisonment under false charges. According to the Petitioner, due to long service with the Bank, he has developed personal relationship with some of the customers of the Bank including Mohammed Ibrahim and his brother Mohammed Mustafa and that Petitioner had telephonic talk with Mohammed Ibrahim and requested him for a loan of Rs.2 lakhs to meet Petitioners pressing financial demand. 7. Further case of the Petitioner is that account-holder Mohammed Ibrahim advised his brother Mohammed Mustafa to do the needful to enable the Petitioner to take money from the Fixed Deposit Account and Mohammed Mustafa handed over the signed papers and relevant loan vouchers and application to the Petitioner and only thereafter, necessary sanction was accorded. Petitioner mainly placed reliance upon the statement of Mohammed Mustafa dated 29. 2002 and 08. 2003. Stand of the Petitioner is that without holding any enquiry or obtaining any statement from him, the Authority arrived at the conclusion and passed orders on their own interpretation. 8. Drawing Courts attention to the statement of Mohammed Mustafa and other records, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there could have never been any intention on the part of the Petitioner to commit fraud. Demand Drafts were made out in favour of Petitioners own wife and brother could by no means be concealed from the holder of Fixed Deposit nor from the Bank authorities and therefore, question of fraud or cheating or even dishonesty does not arise. 9. During enquiry, it was brought on record that loan was taken without the consent of account-holder Mohammed Ibrahim. 9. During enquiry, it was brought on record that loan was taken without the consent of account-holder Mohammed Ibrahim. From the submissions of learned counsel for the Bank and averments in the counter-affidavit, it comes to be known that on 09. 2002 Mohammed Ibrahim called the Branch over phone from abroad and requested for consolidation of two Fixed Deposit Receipts into one and enquired about the rate of interest to which he would be entitled to. At that time, referring to the Deposit Receipts and noticing that account-holder has availed loan of Rs.2 lakhs, Branch Manager enquired Mohammed Ibrahim about the loan, he has stated that he has not availed loan against the deposits. On enquiry from Mohammed Mustafa, it came to be known that on 18. 2002, Mohammed Mustafa had not come to the Bank and the signature of Mohammed Mustafa obtained in a blank set of documents were used for availing the loan. On 04.09.2002, Mohammed Mustafa also gave a letter confirming that he had not availed the loan nor offered the deposits as security. 10. Petitioner had taken the stand that loan was sanctioned with the knowledge of Branch Manager and only the loan application form do not bear his signature and that Branch Manager had failed to sign the loan application form. Petitioner has defended charges contending that Demand Draft for the 2nd instalment of Rs.1,50,000/- drawn in favour of John Bosco, brother of Petitioner disbursed on 28. 2002 was signed by the Branch Manager and therefore knowledge of Branch Manager should be inferred. 11. Procedure wise, loan should be sanctioned by the Branch Manager and disbursed by him when he is present in the Branch. On 18. 2002, Branch Manager and Asst. Branch Manager Ilavarasan were present in the Branch and both of them have stated that they were not aware of the transaction and they came to know only when depositor phoned from Overseas. 12. Referring to MEX.8, Enquiry Officer arrived at the conclusion that there is no signature of Branch Manager or indication that the loan had been sanctioned by the Branch Manager. As per the Bank procedure, Officers are not expected to raise loan especially from customers of the Bank. 12. Referring to MEX.8, Enquiry Officer arrived at the conclusion that there is no signature of Branch Manager or indication that the loan had been sanctioned by the Branch Manager. As per the Bank procedure, Officers are not expected to raise loan especially from customers of the Bank. Fundamental rule observed in all Banks is that if there is any debit voucher whose credit is in favour of an Officer directly or indirectly benefiting him should be passed by himself including the highest Officer of any Bank. Only exception is that the salary credit by a Branch Manager is passed for himself along with all salary credit for all others. The questioned transaction being a special transaction favouring self, Petitioner should have seen that availing loan by an Officer by debiting the partys account should have been brought to the notice of the Branch Manager and written instruction obtained. 13. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placed much reliance upon MEX.8 which is a request letter dated 29. 2002 wherein Mohammed Mustafa has stated that Petitioner has asked for loan from his brother Mohammed Ibrahim who in turn asked the Petitioner to contact Mohammed Mustafa for availing loan and that Petitioner had used signed blank set of documents of Mohammed Mustafa. Mohammed Mustafa was examined as M.W.3. During oral enquiry, Mohammed Mustafa has resiled from MEX.8 and stated that to save the delinquent, he has stated so in his letter dated 29. 2002, but in his letter dated 08. 2003, Mohammed Mustafa has reiterated the contents in the letter dated 29. 2002 and has resiled from his statement during oral enquiry. Mohammed Mustafa being an infirm witness kept on changing his stand. 14. In Para (9) of Petitioners affidavit, Petitioner has stated that on 18. 2002, Mohammed Mustafa had not come to the Bank. Enquiry Officer taken that statement as the precise reason as to why Mohammed Mustafa could not have given the letter dated 18. 2002 requesting for grant of loan for Rs.2 lakhs against the deposit of Rs.3.5 lakhs and Demand Draft for Rs.50,000/-in favour of Petitioners wife on 18. 2002. If really, consent of Mohammed Mustafa was taken for availing the loan, it could have been very well brought to the notice of Branch Manager. 2002 requesting for grant of loan for Rs.2 lakhs against the deposit of Rs.3.5 lakhs and Demand Draft for Rs.50,000/-in favour of Petitioners wife on 18. 2002. If really, consent of Mohammed Mustafa was taken for availing the loan, it could have been very well brought to the notice of Branch Manager. Admittedly, signature of Branch Manager was not found in the loan application and there is nothing to indicate that loan was sanctioned on the orders passed by the Branch Manager. 15. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that no significance attached to the absence of signature of Branch Manager in the loan application. It was further argued that inference of Branch Managers knowledge should flow directly from the fact that he was a co-signatory of the Demand Draft drawn for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in the name of John Bosco, brother of the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that Enquiry Officer glibly accepted the explanation of the Bank that Branch Manager would have affixed his signature as co-signatory based on the first signature. 16. As pointed out earlier, there is nothing on record to show that Branch Manager has sanctioned the loan or his orders were obtained for sanction of loan. As per the Bank procedure, order of Branch Manager for sanction of the loan is mandatory and such sanction is not a matter of inference. Finding of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. 17. Contending that Writ Court will not reverse the finding of Enquiring Authority on ground that evidence adduced before Enquiring Authority was insufficient, learned counsel for the Respondents placed much reliance upon 1999 II LLJ 1415 [Saini R.S. v. State of Punjab and others] and (2006) 7 SCC 212 [State Bank of India and others v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde]. 8. Exercising judicial review under Art. 226 of Constitution, Writ Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to re-appreciate the evidence. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. 19. 8. Exercising judicial review under Art. 226 of Constitution, Writ Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to re-appreciate the evidence. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. 19. Observing that once findings of fact are based on appreciation of evidence, in Writ jurisdiction High Court would not normally interfere with those factual findings, in Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K.Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759 , the Supreme Court has held as under: "In departmental proceedings, the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and in case an appeal is presented to the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority has also the power/and jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact finding authorities. Once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High Court in Writ Jurisdiction may not normally interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and /or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. Since, the High Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court cannot normally speaking substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities. Even insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the disciplinary or the departmental Appellate Authority, is either impermissible or such that if shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other punishment or penalty." 20. The impugned order is assailed mainly on the ground that there was violation of principles of natural justice. Drawing Courts attention to the Memorandum dated 13. 2003, it was submitted that the said communication from the Disciplinary Authority was in Hindi and Petitioner did not know to write or understand Hindi and therefore, Petitioner bound by the instruction received from Karaikudi branch. Drawing Courts attention to the Memorandum dated 13. 2003, it was submitted that the said communication from the Disciplinary Authority was in Hindi and Petitioner did not know to write or understand Hindi and therefore, Petitioner bound by the instruction received from Karaikudi branch. Learned counsel would further submit that the text of communication from Karaikudi branch is only to the effect of asking the Petitioner to acknowledge the letter and send acknowledgment copy to the Banks I.R. Division, Central Office. It was further submitted that based on the said communication from Karaikudi branch, Petitioner has sent acknowledgment. But communication from the Disciplinary Authority turned out to be a communication calling for Petitioners remarks on the enquiry report and going through the instructions received by the Karaikudi branch, Petitioner had only acknowledged the report and he had not offered his comments and therefore, Petitioner was punished based on the enquiry report without any explanation from the Petitioners side. 21. On behalf of the Petitioner, it was mainly contended that Petitioner was deprived of his opportunity to offer his explanation for the enquiry report and non-compliance of principles of natural justice has caused serious prejudice to the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that when Petitioner has preferred an appeal Appellate Authority was required to apply its mind to all the circumstances the Appellate Authority has not applied its mind to the facts. 22. In his representation to the Appellate Authority (dated 08. 2003), Petitioner has stated that he has taken loan due to unforeseen circumstances which he had to face due to his sons imprisonment under false charges and that it is a lapse on his part that he has failed to ensure whether Branch Manager has incorporated his signature for having sanctioned the loan. In such circumstances, question is whether offering of explanation by the Petitioner would have made any difference in the result of the case. 23. It is settled law that principles of natural justice have to be complied with. One of the principles of natural justice is audi alteram partem (Hear the other side). But it is equally well settled that the concept natural justice is not a fixed one. Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules and they cannot be imprisoned within the strait-jacket of a rigid formula. 24. One of the principles of natural justice is audi alteram partem (Hear the other side). But it is equally well settled that the concept natural justice is not a fixed one. Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules and they cannot be imprisoned within the strait-jacket of a rigid formula. 24. In (1969) 2 SCC 262 [A.K.Kraipak v. Union of India], Supreme Court has held as follows:- "What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case." 25. Normal rule is that a person must have a fair trial and a fair appeal and he cannot be asked to be satisfied with an unfair trial and a fair appeal. As is seen from the material records, elaborate oral enquiry was held and Petitioner did have a fair trial. There is no substance that principles of natural justice are not rigid and hence they cannot be imprisoned in a strait-jacket formula. We have to look whether actually prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner and whether he has been deprived of his right. 26. It is now well settled that principles of natural justice were required to be complied with by the Disciplinary Authority. He was also required to apply the mind to the materials on record. Punishment imposed upon the Disciplinary Authority cannot be set aside merely on the ground that Memorandum was in Hindi and therefore, Petitioner could not offer his remarks on the enquiry report. 27. In P.D.Agrawal v. State Bank of India [ (2006) 8 SCC 776 ], Supreme Court restated the principles of natural justice and indicated that they are flexible and in the recent times, they had undergone a sea change. Supreme Court further held that if there is no prejudice to the employee, an action cannot be set aside merely on the ground that no hearing was afforded before taking a decision by the authority. 28. Supreme Court further held that if there is no prejudice to the employee, an action cannot be set aside merely on the ground that no hearing was afforded before taking a decision by the authority. 28. In (1996) 3 SCC 364 [State Bank of Patiala and others v. S.K.Sharma], Supreme Court summarised the principles concerning principles of natural justice in the context of disciplinary proceedings and Para 33 (3) is relevant to be noted:- "33(3): In the case of violation of a procedural provision, the position is this: procedural provisions are generally meant for affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the delinquent officer/employee. They are, generally speaking, conceived in his interest. Violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. Except cases falling under – "no notice", "no opportunity" and "no hearing" categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively. If it is found that he has been so prejudiced, appropriate orders have to be made to repair and remedy the prejudice including setting aside the enquiry and/or the order of punishment. If no prejudice is established to have resulted therefrom, it is obvious, no interference is called for. In this connection, it may be remembered that there may be certain procedural provisions which are of a fundamental character, whose violation is by itself proof of prejudice. The Court may not insist on proof of prejudice in such cases. As explained in the body of the judgment, take a case where there is a provision expressly providing that after the evidence of the employer/government is over, the employee shall be given an opportunity to lead defence in his evidence, and in a given case, the enquiry officer does not give that opportunity in spite of the delinquent officer/employee asking for it. The prejudice is selfevident. No proof of prejudice as such need be called for in such a case. To repeat, the test is one of prejudice, i.e., whether the person has received a fair hearing considering all things. Now, this very aspect can also be looked at from the point of view of directory and mandatory provisions, if one is so inclined. No proof of prejudice as such need be called for in such a case. To repeat, the test is one of prejudice, i.e., whether the person has received a fair hearing considering all things. Now, this very aspect can also be looked at from the point of view of directory and mandatory provisions, if one is so inclined. The principle stated under (4) herein below is only another way of looking at the same aspect as is dealt with herein and not a different or distinct principle." 29. Petitioner being an Accountant in the Respondent Bank was removed from service for the alleged misconduct proved against him. As repeatedly held by the Supreme Court, employees of the Bank are expected to act with absolute integrity and honesty in handling the funds of customers/borrowers of the Bank. Even a temporary misappropriation of funds of the Bank constitutes serious misconduct inviting severe punishment. When the enquiry found to be fair and proper and finding in respect of serious charge was found to be valid, punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate warranting interference. 30. Observing that employees of the bank are expected to act with absolute integrity and honesty and honesty in handling the funds of the customers/borrowers of the Bank, in (2008) 8 SCC 92 [Shyamal Kanti Guha v. Meena Bose], Supreme Court has held as follows:- "41. At the relevant point of time the respondent was functioning as a Branch Manager. A bank survives on the trust of its clientele and constituents. The position of the Manager of a bank is a matter of great trust. The employees of the bank in particular the Manager are expected to act with absolute integrity and honesty in handling the funds of the customers/borrowers of the bank. Any misappropriation, even temporary, of the funds of the bank or its customers/borrowers constitutes a serious misconduct, inviting severe punishment. When a borrower makes any payment towards a loan, the Manager of the bank receiving such amount is required to credit it immediately to the borrowers account. If the matter is to be viewed lightly or leniently it will encourage other bank employees to indulge in such activities thereby undermining the entire banking system. The request for reducing the punishment is misconceived and rejected." 31. If the matter is to be viewed lightly or leniently it will encourage other bank employees to indulge in such activities thereby undermining the entire banking system. The request for reducing the punishment is misconceived and rejected." 31. In (2006) 7 SCC 212 [State Bank of India and others v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde], Supreme Court held that bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity as he deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. It was further held that honesty, integrity, good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning and therefore, it would not proper to deal with the matter leniently. The proved misconduct of the Petitioner is very serious dereliction of duty and the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate warranting interference. 32. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.